So far we have a 10 man team....

....a pack of forwards, and a set of half backs. The centres and back three have not come to the party. None of our tries on Saturday had it's genesis in the outside backs. I see no understanding between Jantjies and his centres....no creativity in the centres, and no solidity in the back three. .. Major changes will have to be made. I would immediately replace the centres with Rohan and Vorster....which would give us instant linkage with the half backs. Sadly we will have to be caned by the Aussies and ABs before this kind of change will be considered.

 Balls as per normal.    Skosan and Coetzee are very good and the problem is wuth the center pairing and Rhule.   
I would also say there is still a loosie problem with Cassiem and the worst situation is in fact at scrummie,
 

Next time I want a point of view on "Skpsan" I'll get back to you. In the meantime you are free to go to the next Schools Match. In the unlikely event of you not bringing up the rear in Make Believe rugby, though, feel free to add your point 0f view.

 Typing errors galore corrected - but as you said - your opinion about rugby is a joke.   I can still remember how slavishly you supported the Meyer selections and there were less than 10 players that selected themselves and the results ultimately was disastrous, 

'But as you said'.....show me where Tokkie. Just this once come through with the goods....back up your BS.

 
Is that 10 of 15 ... or of the match 23?

The Bulls were our worst SR franchise this season and yet we have their midfield in Serfontein and Kriel. It's just not logical.

Janse van Rensburg and Vorster have stood out over the last two seasons. How is it possible that Quota Outa hasn't noticed them? Is it deliberate?

l also feel we can do better than the current back three. Coetzee is relatively solid there ... but in all honesty he's like a Crotty ... who has never given the impression he'll light the field ablaze with innovative, creative, match winning runs. He's no Andre Joubert, no Johan Heunis, no Percy Montgomery. Surely we can do better?

Yes I know it's early days ... but he's had the perfect opportunity to settle in and show us his magic against the shoddy competition he's faced this year. Jantjies has used it to build a little confidence. Etzebeth has used it to settle in as captain. Coetzee hasn't ... I don't think he has any more to show us. What we've seen so far is all we're going to see. How will he do against the All Blacks? How will he do under a lot more pressure where time is taken from him?

Skosan is another solid player. He has pace and a nice inside step ... but what else?
Can he challenge Habana in his prime? Can he challenge an aging Habana? Does he even come close to a Habana? I don't think so?

If average is what we're going for then I guess he's our man.

I would have tested the talented Nkosi. He has a lot of pace and is a lot more physical. I was very impressed how he contained Combrinck in their last encounter.  

It sounds as though you're happy with our pack. Surely not?

The back row is a mess ... and so is our front row. I can think of several players that would make a huge difference.

The bench should be used as a weapon ... not to hide quotas like Bongi and Paige on.

According to my calculations we have 9 of the 23 in place. That's less than 40% ... and with it we've moved up to 3rd.

What would we do with 90%?


 

Mozart
Where your opinion is a joke or where you are wrong about the present selections?  You turned yourself into a joke when Meyer was coach and you supported his selections all out.    When it was clear by 2014  that Meyer was on the wrong path you defended his selection of reputation players who were not performing on par.
You supported the hospital ward selection of players who have not played any rugby for near to two years in some cases.   You supported the under-performing Matfield all out.  When the situation arises where Meyer was forced to bring in new players in the WC squad with very little test experience you attack those players.   Whe the Japan disaster happened - you blamed Kriel alone for the loss ignoring facts like the BS produced by the experienced non-performing players like Matfield who ignored the game plan for the match - Bismarck who gave away penalies as if there were no plan - Burger who took over as flyhalf and spilled the ball constantly - Jannie who were scrumming poorly - Pienaar and De Villiers who did nothing the whole match.   This was the most experienced Springbok team ever presenting the most catastrophic result ever.   Yet you tried to hide the factual performance of the reputation players by constant attacks on Kriel and De Jager.   Your constant and repetitive mania about older players and sportsmen is well-known and has been dealt with often on this site. 
The above showed a total void in perspective of rugby issues and your record since then has been no better - remarks like 9o% of the functions of flyhalfs are to kick balls, that scoring of tries is not important and that locks are not expected to score tries, that a try-saving tackle is a weak tackle, that ball protection and recovery of balls are not a basic requirement for all players - but that the loosies are most often involved in this aspect of play.
The list can go on and on - and is augmented by silly attacks on players you are prejudiced against for flimsy reasons and your misusing of player stats is notorious,   That was augmented by attacks on Venter and Smith before the test series and your misleading posts on Erasmus.
You are obviously entitled to your own opinions - but those should be supported by facts - not imaginary fiction.   Don't post video clips that does not support your arguments and indicates that you were misleading members,   This happened twice already, 
As to the present squad I substantially agree with what CC wrote above.  There are deficiencies amongst the forwards - where you suggest full support,  There are other players where  you are wrong about in many other people's opinion.   So when I differ from you a personal attack is guaranteed and counter-arguments are never forthcoming.
I think to discuss a debate with you on rugby performance issues are in fact fruitless and non-productive - so I will not respond to repetitive silliness in future,      
        

Mozart
Where your opinion is a joke or where you are wrong about the present selections?  You turned yourself into a joke when Meyer was coach and you supported his selections all out.    When it was clear by 2014  that Meyer was on the wrong path you defended his selection of reputation players who were not performing on par.
You supported the hospital ward selection of players who have not played any rugby for near to two years in some cases.   You supported the under-performing Matfield all out.  When the situation arises where Meyer was forced to bring in new players in the WC squad with very little test experience you attack those players.   When the Japan disaster happened - you blamed Kriel alone for the loss ignoring facts like the BS produced by the experienced non-performing players like Matfield who ignored the game plan for the match - Bismarck who gave away penalies as if there were no plan - Burger who took over as flyhalf and spilled the ball constantly - Jannie who were scrumming poorly - Pienaar and De Villiers who did nothing the whole match.   This was the most experienced Springbok team ever presenting the most catastrophic result ever.   Yet you tried to hide the factual performance of the reputation players by constant attacks on Kriel and De Jager.   Your constant and repetitive mania about older players and sportsmen is well-known and has been dealt with often on this site. 
The above showed a total void in perspective of rugby issues and your record since then has been no better - remarks like 90 % of the functions of flyhalfs are to kick balls, that scoring of tries is not important and that locks are not expected to score tries, that a try-saving tackle is a weak tackle, that ball protection and recovery of balls are not a basic requirement for all players - but that the loosies are most often involved in this aspect of play.
The list can go on and on - and is augmented by silly attacks on players you are prejudiced against for flimsy reasons and your misusing of player stats is notorious,   That was augmented by attacks on Venter and Smith before the test series and your misleading posts on Erasmus.
You are obviously entitled to your own opinions - but those should be supported by facts - not imaginary fiction.   Don't post video clips that does not support your arguments and indicates that you were misleading members,   This happened twice already, 
As to the present squad I substantially agree with what CC wrote above.  There are deficiencies amongst the forwards - where you suggest full support,  There are other players where  you are wrong about in many other people's opinion.   So when I differ from you a personal attack is guaranteed and counter-arguments are never forthcoming.
I think to discuss a debate with you on rugby performance issues are in fact fruitless and non-productive - so I will not respond to repetitive silliness in future,      
        

 
Mike ... regarding our locks in the Boks mix.

We have 4 in the Bok Squad ... of which 3 are loosehead locks or 4 locks. It is only Mostert who plays naturally at 5, or on the tighthead side.

Etzebeth, Du Toit and De Jager are all better suited to the 4 jumper.

As you know, each lock position has different skill set requirements. Each has his own job to do. The 4 lock is more of an enforcer type ... a powerful ball carrier and scrummager ... hitting the rucks ... cleaning players out ... while the 5 lock specialises more in the lineout ... with lineout calls ... reading opposition put ins ... trying to steal opposition ball ... directing his fellow team mates in that setpiece.

Mostert has stolen more ball this year than anyone else in this season's SR comp ... and that is why I regard him as a must in the Bok mix. He will hopefully learn a lot from Matfield.

Du Toit is a class act, despite what Mozart says. To my mind he's competing against Etzebeth for the 4 jumper ... or he should be. The one big plus we have in him is that he can play both at 4 and at 5 ... making him the perfect lock cover.  

Well the part I will agree with is Stephanie is poor at the traditional 5 lock role of running the lineout. But I don't think he has the physicality to play 4. Lavanini tossed him around like a twig in their off the ball confrontation....and he simply seems to run out of gas. He has become a fan pick, not because of full games played with vigour.....but because of 15 minute sub performances, and pick and go's which is his main weapon. I think that's a decent role for him.

 Ag Balls again - are you demented - fool

Nope. So far I'm spot on....including the bench role.

 Read the above and see whether you have ever been right about anything related to rugby.    An idiot is always right in his own eyes- so l ets accept it - you are a moron.

 Read the above and see whether you have ever been right about anything related to rugby.    An idiot is always right in his own eyes- so l ets accept it - you are a moron.

 Read the above and see whether you have ever been right about anything related to rugby.    An idiot is always right in his own eyes- so l ets accept it - you are a moron.

Okay let's test you Tokkie....here is a simple problem for you to solve: . X+ 2Y= 20 . 5X + 4Y =58 . Ten year old kids could solve this problem......convince me you are not an idiot, solve for x and Y.

Okay I guess I'll have to accept it....you are a moron.

Back to the top so Tokkie can respond.

 A 5-year old will come up with BS like that on a rugby forum,     

 Just solve it Tokkie.....you are always calling others stupid. Here's your chance, show your great intellect by solving a Standard Six problem. Or are you too thick?

 Can't believe how obsessed this man has become....it's unbelievable.

The part that had me rolling in the aisles was when he said he wasn't going to repond to me anymore.....at the end of a nearly 50 line rant! Barking mad.

 I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, starts off the same and finishes the same......madness!

 Again with the poorly formulated problems .

Instead of telling what ten year old kids should know in maths, as it is a rugby forum, better to focus on what ten year old kids must know in rugby practice.

It was already exposed that kids in SA are not taught. When the french team went to promote rugby to kids, it appeared clearly those kids were not given the basics.

Worst performance in all nations.

 SA has a ten man team. That is the piece of news. The quota players coming from the team that was boosted to the SR finals are included?

SA has a zero man team. SA cant win stuff. They cant even win when all the odds are stacked in their favour, just like in that SR rugby final when the SA quota team was handed advantages over advantages on a non merit base.

Rugby must be terminated in SA.

It would happen fast enough if SA applied a merit based policy.

To keep existing, SA rugby must deserve it.

This happens when SA rugby shows results like winning 2 out of 3 WCs and winning 5 out of 6 4Ns.

Of course SA will chicken out of a merit based policy, prefering to hide behind their quota policy to conceal their appalling level and that rugby must be terminated in SA.